Why Mayawati’s UP move makes national sense

Mayawati has proposed carving up Uttar Pradesh into four states. Her opponents are likely to instinctively cry foul. It would be no surprise since Mayawati government in UP has not been a paragon of good governance. That, coupled with her penchant for self-aggrandisement, has made the educated class view everything she does with suspicion. So, creating four states out of present-day UP will be seen as an effort to consolidate her grip on power. She would be controlling four state governments instead of one. That may well be her intention too.

Yet, the law of unintended consequence would ensure that in the long run it is a beneficial development for the entire region. In fact, what Mayawati is doing in UP could well become a model for regions feeling neglected in other large states. Developmental imbalance and neglect of regional identity are known phenomena in every large state. Telangana is wanting to opt out of Andhra Pradesh for precisely this reason. It is same with Vidarbha in Maharashtra. There are many other regions that do not aspire for statehood but nevertheless are unhappy with the deal they have got in their respective states.

To many people, creating more states equals breaking up of the country and increasing the number of wasteful and corrupt state governments. It is a fallacy. If having more states means breaking up the country then there is a case for abolishing all of them and have a single unitary structure. Actually, empowering local populations within the country strengthens the nation rather than weaken it. People feel more control over their destiny when they have their own people in power.

Yes, more state governments would mean more bureaucracy and more expenses. However, people also benefit by having a more accessible state government. I remember the reaction of villagers in remote Chhattisgarh villages when I talked to them a year after creation of that state. I had thought creation of Chhattisgarh would benefit only people of capital Raipur or one or two large towns like Bilaspur or Bhilai. Surprisingly, the villagers appeared happier with it than city dwellers.

Their reason: earlier if anything happened in their village it would find no echo in distant capital of Bhopal. The people were completely at the mercy of local SP and collector. After Chhattisgarh’s creation, though, suddenly developments of their village were making Raipur newspapers. Any major incident brought immediate top level intervention from state police chief, home minister, or even chief minister. Not just that, practically every district had representation in state cabinet. This meant people could approach leaders they know with problems.

The biggest benefit was that villagers could travel to Raipur and get back within a day. This saved them enormous time and expense. Chhattisgarh babus may be as corrupt as any but this corruption money also now stays largely within Chhattisgarh and helps local economy. Earlier, even bribes people paid benefited folks in Bhopal. Right now, people from Gadchiroli in Maharashtra have to travel over 1000 kms to reach Mumbai, the highest distance a capital has from one of its district headquarters. The one way journey takes two days and they need to put up in a hotel or lodge. So they do not make the journey at all. No surprise the place is extremely backward.

Smaller states also mean more capital cities that naturally attract investment and development. There would thus be many more magnets for people migrating from villages for education and employment. This would reduce pressure on places like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore. Finally, it would end the dominance of larger states in national politics and make Central government truly federal in character.

It would thus make sense if not just Vidarbha but also Marathwada are separated from Maharashtra. Mahakoshal with Jabalpur as capital and Malwa with Indore could really take off. Similarly, Saurashtra could be made into a state too. There are many such examples. It would help preserve the sense of regional identity that was lost when linguistic states were created. Besides, it would address the sense of grievance that backward regions harbour. If United States with one fourth our population can have 50 states, why can’t we? Mayawati, for a change, is making eminent sense.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply interested in social and environmental issues and loves to travel, especially in wildlife rich forests of central India.

Alok Tiwari is deputy resident editor of The Times of India, Nagpur. In a career of nearly 30 years, he has reported on practically every beat. He is deeply. . .